Re: The thing about ID...

Denis Loubet wrote:
> "Charles" <charles.shelton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1131114658.352501.39580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

> >
> > Here's where I see a problem with your argument:
> >
> > There is a difference between personal beliefs and scientific
> > conclusions. Some personal beliefs (e.g. the existense of God) are not
> > testable and cannot be studied by science. Why is it dishonest,
> > illogical, or irrational to do science and make scientific conclusions
> > while still holding some personal beliefs that are not covered by
> > science? Why do you assert that these personal beliefs put a "logical
> > burden" on the scientist?
>
> Because the scientist accepts his beliefs as true.
>
> Thus, if he willfully dismisses his beliefs concerning a god when they are
> inconvenient to his work, he is doing something he believes is false.

How has the belief been dismissed, and how is it inconvenient to the
work? Most people believe that God is all-powerful, but that he
doesn't act arbitrarily. The results of science are completely
consistent with this belief. Sure, God *could* act arbitrarily, but so
far, to the best of our collective knowledge, He hasn't and it doesn't
seem like He plans to. So why is this belief inconvenient, and why
does it need to be dismissed? Science can be performed with the normal
activities of observation and experimentation, with no reference to God
or belief in God whatsoever. That doesn't mean the practicing
scientist *denies* his/her belief. It means that the belief doesn't
contribute to the science one way or the other.

> > As I see it, science only requires that scientific conclusions can only
> > be drawn from evidence consisting of observations and experimentations.
> > If you rely on science to make predicitons, then you make the
> > tentative assumption that the universe is consistent and that
> > scientific knowledge is reliable. However, science presents no
> > guarantee that tomorrow science will still work. Scientific knowledge
> > is tentative.
>
> Granted.
>
> But if you accept *as true* that there *does exist* a being that can
> undetectably alter evidence and observations at a whim at any moment, you
> can't trust anything at all. If you believe such a thing, you've completely
> and utterly destroyed the validity of evidence and observation. You cannot
> do science in such an environment.

That's demonstrably false, as many of the greatest scientists believed
in God and managed to contribute to science just fine. There's also no
evidence of them pretending God didn't exist to perform their
experiments. Belief that God exists does not mean you must believe
that God will act arbitrarily. In fact if you believed science works
and you believed in God you would probably believe that He doesn't act
arbitrarily, for reasons He hasn't shared with us. Most people who
believe in God trust Him not to change reality on a whim. How does
this prevent anyone from doing science or trusting scientific
conclusions?

> That is, unless you deny that belief that you accept as true when you do
> science. That seems crazy.

You might also believe that God acts through natural processes, so that
when you discover those processes you're revealing God's actions. This
belief cannot be empirically tested or verified, but it doesn't
contradict the evidence at all. It's completely consistent with it, as
is the belief that there is nothing behind those natural processes at
all. Neither conclusion follows directly from the evidence, because
both explanations explain the same data.

> > Science also doesn't deny the existence of God. Since by definition
> > God is omnipotent, He could arbitrarily produce any outcome to an
> > experiment.
>
> That alone, that point right there, spells the death of science. If you
> believe that it is true that such a being actually exists, then if you are
> honest with yourself you must agree that you cannot trust your observations
> and experiments AT ALL. If you accept as true that such a being exists, then
> you cannot do science unless you somehow lie to yourself.

See my point above. You can come to the conclusion that such a being
has for whatever reasons decided not to act arbitrarily. Why is this
deceitful to oneself? Why can't science continue with this belief
being held?

> > There's no test we can perform and no prediction we can
> > make to conclude that God does or does not exist. Thus, the question
> > is outside of science. The best science can say is "don't know, and
> > can't come up with a good test that would give evidence either way."
>
> No. The reason that god is outside of science, is that no evidence has
> pointed in the direction of a god. If there's no evidence of something, then
> the tool of science cannot be applied to it.

Evidence comes from observations and experiments. The problem isn't
that no evidence exists, it's that there's no way to devise an
experiment to get evidence either way. You can't have *any* evidence
point to a god *unless* that god wants to be found. Since no evidence
has been found, there are two possible conclusions: such a god doesn't
exist, *or* that god is unwilling to provide evidence. Since *either*
conclusion fits the available evidence, deciding which is more
plausible is outside science. There's no evidence to distinguish the
two conclusions. And no conceivable method available to obtain such
evidence. *That's* why it's outside science.

> > Therefore, I submit that the belief that God doesn't exist is logically
> > equivalent to the belief that God does exist and intervenes, from the
> > point of view of science.
>
> Science has no view on that issue until evidence is forthcoming.

So why do you say the scientist must not believe an all-powerful God
exists in order to do science?

> > Both conclusions cannot be tested and rely
> > on personal belief. Therefore they are outside of science. A
> > demonstration:
> >
> > Take these conclusions:
> > 1. God doesn't exist and never did.
> > 2. God exists but doesn't intervene in the universe. He set it up and
> > let it go.
> > 3. God exists and intervenes rarely through miracles, but he doesn't
> > leave any physical evidence to test believers.
> > 4. God exists and intervenes rarely through miracles, but we haven't
> > found the physical evidence yet.
> > 5. God exists and intervenes all the time, but doesn't behave
> > arbitrarily so the universe appears to follow rules.
> > 6. God exists and intervenes all the time, and he is arbitrary, but he
> > hasn't decided to be inconsistent yet. He's got a great prank on the
> > universe ready to go for next Thursday.
> > 7. Any conclusion about the existence/non-existence of God and his
> > action/inaction are all consistent with physical evidence because God
> > is by definition omnipotent. Since his behavior (or non-behavior)
> > would be consistent with any outcome, we can't draw any scientific
> > conclusions.
>
> My point has never been about the existence or non-existence of a god. It is
> about belief in a god, and how the logical ramifications of that belief
> should destroy the very foundations of science if the believer is honest
> with himself.

But all of these conclusions are consistent with the available
scientific evidence. A scientist could hold any of these beliefs
without there being a contradiction with the evidence. He/she is only
restricted from saying that 1-6 are scientific claims, because they
don't follow directly from the evidence. 7 is the only conclusion in
the bounds of science, but all the conclusions fit the evidence.
Holding any of these beliefs does not prevent science from being
conducted as usual, as long as the beliefs are not used as scientific
facts. There is no requirement that a scientist must account for
his/her metaphysical beliefs when drawing scientific conclusions.

> > Which of these conclusions is "irrational, dishonest, or illogical?"
> > If you say 2-6 but not 1, that's inconsistent.
>
> Granted.
>
> But why would one make claim #1?
>
> Allow me to present claim #0. "---"
>
> Claim number 0 makes no claim concerning gods because no evidence points
> towards any. So claims 1 to 6 can be irrational dishonest and illogical, but
> claim 0 remains rational, honest, and logical.
>
> If the tool of science can be said to hold a position on gods, then claim 0
> is that position.

Isn't claim 0 just restating my claim 7? So are you saying that
agnosticism is the only honest worldview for the scientist?

> > If 2-6 are invalid
> > positions, 1 is just as invalid, because there's no scientific test we
> > can perform to draw a conclusion about God. As long as a scientist
> > holds that 7 is the only conclusion that science can assert, he/she is
> > free to hold any of beliefs 1-6 and still be an honest, rational,
> > logical scientist.
>
> That means the scientist must deny what he accepts as true.
>
> > He/she recognizes that the personal belief is
> > outside science, and need not pretend that God doesn't exist to do
> > science, nor add in a "God factor" when analyzing experiments.
>
> You use the phrase "personal belief" as a way to draw attention from the
> fact that the personal belief is held to be true. Thus, to perform science,
> the believer must deny what he believes to be true.

Do you not distinguish between beliefs held based on evidence and
belief held based on faith? You do not have to deny any faith-based
beliefs that do not contradict the evidence. As I've explained above,
belief in an all-powerful God that just happens to choose not to reveal
Himself fits all the scientific evidence just as well as the belief
that God doesn't exist. Why is this dishonest or crazy? Why is the
business of science hampered by any belief that can't be addressed by
science anyway?

>
> That's crazy.
>
> > The
> > problem with your argument is that you present a false dichotomy.
> > Science doesn't require that you believe 1,
>
> And I have never made that claim.
>
> > it requires that you don't
> > claim your personal belief is a scientific conclusion.
>
> It requires that you don't hold as true, what you hold as true.

See my point about evidence-based versus faith-based beliefs. Science
is not about THE TRUTH. It's about the best explanation that fits the
data. You're free to hold any other beliefs that don't contradict the
data and can't be tested, as long as you don't claim that they're
scientifically valid, or can be evaluated by science. Belief (or
unbelief) in God doesn't contradict the observation that reality is
consistent. See conclusions 1-6 above. They all fit the available
evidence and there's no way to determine which is correct. Therefore
any of these beliefs is consistent with science (Well, conclusion 6 may
be refuted next Thursday).

Charles

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... definition of "science." ... things from several highly respected scientists. ... should be.* when wackos like you start making claims like "god exists" ... the evidence can be mine for the low low price of $200 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Comprehending Steven J.
    ... to be the *factually* inerrant word of God. ... "literal sense" scripture and common sense and science. ... be factual by supposition and not by evidence. ... as is the case with Dr. Miller. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... > and god is certainly one such thing. ... > and all evidence indicates that evolution is undirected. ... terms isn't the end of the world nor the end of responsible science. ... of scientists that has been able to do that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Richard Dawkins - yeah, whatever...*yawn*
    ... science to God as to the evolution of protein. ... and has found no evidence for him. ... Scientists usually only discuss lack of evidence when refuting a scientific ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
Loading